Resource description:
Despite the wealth of evidence on biodiversity status, trends, and policy options in Europe, knowledge often fails to inform policy makers and decision makers effectively. Implementing the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 will require the transformation of engagement and exchange between knowledge providers and policy and decision makers. This is one of the main goals of the forthcoming EU Science Service for Biodiversity. We sought to support this endeavor by mapping the landscape of actors at the biodiversity science–policy–society interface. We first compiled an extensive database of actors (n = 215) by combining existing databases, searching the web, and consulting experts. We then interviewed representatives of key organizations (n = 28) to elicit data about their network of relations with other organizations. Additional qualitative data were elicited from a subset of organizations (n = 17/28) focusing on the roles of different actors in knowledge cocreation and their potential contribution to the functioning of the Science Service for Biodiversity. The social network analysis mapped the interactions (and lack thereof) between 101 organized actors. Central to the network were EU organizations, other international and intergovernmental organizations, and one well-known public interest group. A more varried mix of organizations had the potential to act as bridges between unconnected actors, including private sector organizations, organizations dedicated to the management of eco- logical units, and science-based networks. The social network analysis also revealed 4 thematic communities emerging from the interactions among actors: biodiversity knowledge for EU policy-making; land ownership and management in agriculture and forestry; natural capital and sustainable development; and nature conservation and participation. Consistent with the results of the social network analysis, the qualitative data suggested that nonpolicy and nonscience actors have an important role to play in the dialogue and knowledge cocreation for biodiversity conservation and restoration. To strengthen the European science–policy–society interface on biodiversity, we recommend addressing gaps in themes and actor types, fostering cross-community dialogue, and supporting the further development of the network in terms of participants and potential intermediaries.
Author/Contact:
Dalia D’Amato, Salla Rantala, Kaisa Korhonen-Kurki, Karla E. Locher-Krause, Twan Stoffers, Enzo Falco, Renata Włodarczyk-Marciniak, Mihai Adamescu, Kinga Krauze, M. Susana Orta-Ortiz, Robin Dianoux, Matthew J. Grainger, Juliette Young